The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the internet streaming tv company Aereo August 24, 2014, siding with broadcasters suing the company for taking over-the-air broadcast signals and sending them over the internet. WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 22: Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia leaves the U.S. Supreme Court after oral arguments April 22, 2014 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case against Aereo on the companys profiting from rebroadcasting network TVs programs obtained from public airwaves. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Photo: Alex Wong, Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the internet streaming tv...

Image 2 of 7

FILE - This file image provided by Aereo shows a streaming broadcast of Bob the Builder on the New York PBS station, WNET 13. Just because Aereo's business model has been shot down by the Supreme Court, that doesn't mean customers' desire for a better TV experience has gone away. (AP Photo/Aereo, File)

Photo: Uncredited, Associated Press

FILE - This file image provided by Aereo shows a streaming...

Image 3 of 7

FILE - JUNE 25: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the internet streaming tv company Aereo August 24, 2014, siding with broadcasters suing the company for taking over-the-air broadcast signals and sending them over the internet. WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 22: Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia (2nd R) leaves the U.S. Supreme Court after oral arguments April 22, 2014 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case against Aereo on the company's profiting from rebroadcasting network TVs programs obtained from public airwaves. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Photo: Alex Wong, Getty Images

FILE - JUNE 25: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the...

Image 4 of 7

FILE - This Dec. 20, 2012 file photo shows Chet Kanojia, founder and CEO of Aereo, Inc., holding a tablet displaying his company's technology, in New York. The Supreme Court has ruled that a startup Internet company has to pay broadcasters when it takes television programs from the airwaves and allows subscribers to watch them on smartphones and other portable devices. The justices said Wednesday by a 6-3 vote that Aereo Inc. is violating the broadcasters' copyrights by taking the signals for free. The ruling preserves the ability of the television networks to collect huge fees from cable and satellite systems that transmit their programming. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews, File)

Photo: Bebeto Matthews, Associated Press

FILE - This Dec. 20, 2012 file photo shows Chet Kanojia, founder...

Image 5 of 7

FILE - JUNE 25: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the internet streaming tv company Aereo August 24, 2014, siding with broadcasters suing the company for taking over-the-air broadcast signals and sending them over the internet. NEW YORK, NY - APRIL 22: In this photo illustration, Aereo.com, a web service that provides television shows online, is shown on an MacBook Air, on April 22, 2014 in New York City. Aereo is going head-to-head against ABC, a major television network, in a court case being heard by the Supreme Court. (Photo Illustration by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

Photo: Andrew Burton, Getty Images

FILE - JUNE 25: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the...

Image 6 of 7

FILE - JUNE 25: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the internet streaming tv company Aereo August 24, 2014, siding with broadcasters suing the company for taking over-the-air broadcast signals and sending them over the internet. WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 22: Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia leaves the U.S. Supreme Court after oral arguments April 22, 2014 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case against Aereo on the company's profiting from rebroadcasting network TVs programs obtained from public airwaves. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Photo: Alex Wong, Getty Images

FILE - JUNE 25: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the...

Image 7 of 7

In this photo illustration, Aereo.com, a web service that provides television shows online, is shown on an iPhone 4S on April 22, 2014 in New York City. Aereo is going head-to-head against ABC, a major television network, in a court case being heard by the Supreme Court. (Photo Illustration by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

Aereo chief executive Chet Kanojia reacted to his loss at the Supreme Court by warning of the ruling's potential chilling effect on technologists, and plenty of observers took up that call. Nicco Mele of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government likened the decision to the demise of Napster, which in his view allowed music companies to end a short-term threat while ignoring broader shifts in consumer tastes. And we all know how that worked out.

So is Aereo the new Napster? To determine whether the decision will have more profound effects over time, you have to ask two questions:

-- Will the ruling scare companies away from developing new ways to watch television?

-- Will the ruling allow incumbents to sit on their laurels, deciding against making products that people want because those products would challenge their business models?

The answer to both of these questions seems to be no. But it certainly seems as though the Supreme Court will scare Aereo away from its current course. On Saturday, Kanojia said Aereo is temporarily closing down its operation.

"We have decided to pause our operations temporarily as we consult with the court and map out our next steps," Kanojia wrote in a letter to customers posted on Aereo's website.

The company could continue to operate its antenna farms and sell subscriptions to its users, but it would have to pay broadcast companies for the right to use their content. This would entail a monthly cost of about $1 per channel per customer in retransmission fees. Aereo probably couldn't afford this unless it charged significantly more for its service; its business model was based on keeping prices low by not paying these fees.

But one of the company's competitors, FilmOn, says the Supreme Court actually improved FilmOn's position by ruling that companies such as Aereo function as cable operators. Alki David, chief executive of FilmOn, says he has been unable to get broadcasters to allow the company to access their content even if it paid rebroadcast fees. Broadcasters are required to license their content to cable companies, he says, so some version of Aereo's model could live on. "You charge people $15 for the service," he says, "and then you figure out the costs."

The Supreme Court may also have left some openings for businesses that are slightly different than Aereo. As Justice Antonin Scalia argues in his dissenting opinion, the majority ruling found that Aereo broke the law by offering live television, much like a cable company, but without paying the retransmission fees. If a service offers broadcast content on a delay, does it still fail this cable-comparison test? Scalia thinks not: "Consider the implications of that answer: Aereo would be free to do exactly what it is doing right now so long as it built mandatory time shifting into its 'watch' function," he writes.

Given the increasing ubiquity of time-shifting behavior, where people watch shows on their own schedules, such a service might actually be very popular - even if any business pursuing such a model might want to factor in the possibility that it would spend a lot of time in court. But it would likely preclude innovation in one key area: live sports. In a brief supporting the broadcasters, the National Football League and Major League Baseball laid out a scenario in which Aereo could set up antennas across the country, then charge people for access to all local broadcasts. This is the kind of service that Mele is talking about when he compares Aereo to Napster: It would be appealing to viewers and threatening to broadcasters, who restrict access that customers want in order to protect their existing deals. If there's one specific area where the court has cut off an attractive service, this is probably it.

So that's how the decision will affect new companies. But will the presumed death of Aereo lull the incumbent television industry into complacency? Unlikely. Aereo was a minor player in the drama surrounding the television industry, which still has plenty to worry about. The number of people who paid for television through cable, satellite or fiber providers fell last year for the first time, largely due to online services such as Netflix. There is a steady flow of new mobile TV offering and alternatives to the traditional cable bundle, such as Dish Network's deal with Disney to provide an Internet competitor to cable.

Aereo did push broadcasters to think about how they could move more aggressively into new formats, if for no other reason than to deprive the company from accessing their content. "Some of these discussions that have been in the background for a long time came to the forefront," says Robin Flynn of SNL Kagan. "Those things wouldn't have happened if Aereo wasn't pushing the model."